Why I don’t need an expensive camera.
Oh will you look at that. How very Web 2.0!
On My Flickr Feed, I some times get questions about my use of camera. “Why”, it is asked, “do you shoot with a 450D”?
I understand the question completely. When I was photographing professionally, I wouldn’t have dreamed of using the then-bottom-level camera (the 300D, at the time, I think) even as my back-up camera. The 10D (and later the 20D and 30D) was my the back-up and second-lens camera to my 1D. So how did I end up photographing with the bottom-of-the-range model from Canon only a few short years later?
Let me in on a secret: Even the cheapest d-SLR cameras on the market today are absolutely phenomenal pieces of equipment, and chances are that you don’t need to spend much money to take phenomenal photos.
What am I missing?
"Waves breaking Slowly" - a smoke photo. Taken with a Canon 450D (clicky for full size and details)
As some of you might have noticed, I occasionally dabble in concert photography, and this is where my 450D occasionally lets me down. And then, only in one very specific aspect of my photographic work: I want to take photos faster. I want to be able to take more photos in a shorter period of time. Some times, you realise you’re witnessing something awesome, and you just want to keep the shutter pressed until the awesome has gone away – and then keeping your fingers crossed that one of the six billion photos you’ve taken in the meantime is the shot you were hoping (and praying, if you’re a praying man. Which I’m not. I think I might have gotten better photos with a god on my side, but this is just not That Kind of Blog™) for.
Interestingly, that is the only situation where I’ve ever felt my 450D isn’t up to the job. With the appropriate lighting, my portraiture work comes out lovely. I’ve taken my camera to a load of different countries, and I’ve taken some rather splendid street photos in all of ‘em (if I may say so myself).
The other situation where you might find yourself stuck (although I haven’t had the experience myself, as I make a point of staying as far away from sports as I can) is, er, sports photography.
So, if the 450D is good enough… Is it all just a scam?
You'll often find that lighting is a much bigger factor in photography than the camera you're using. (shot with a Canon EOS 450D. Clickie for bigger)
Wait a minute, cowboy, I never said that. All I’m saying is that at my level (and, I wager to say, at the level of many other photographers), the 450D (and any equivalent low-level SLR cameras) are plenty good.
The problem with photography is that it’s simply too tempting to splash a lot of money for everything, and then end up bankrupting yourself on the wrong things. Sure, I would love to have some of the features offered by more expensive cameras, but I can work around them. For concert photos, I’ve learned to anticipate the movements of the artists, and then try to act on those. I have no doubt that I’ve missed some cracking shots along the way, but equally, I think the limitations of my photographic kit has made me a better photographer. Put differently: Put a 1Ds mk III in my hands now, and I think I’ll be able to take better photos with it than I could have before I learned the limitations of another camera.
The most important thing to remember, though, is that as far as a camera body goes, it doesn’t actually have all that much to do with the picture-taking process itself. Yeah, I know. Controversial. But I said it, and I meant it.
Portrait - taken with a 450D. (click for higher res & info)
Think about it: You are taking a photo of an antelope jumping across a savannah. The sunlight comes from high above, hits the antelope, flies through your lens, into your camera… and the only part of the camera which actually gets involved is the imaging sensor.
I’m not going to lie: I use expensive photographic equipment. I’ve recently splashed a few thousand dollars on lighting equipment. I have some extraordinarily delicious lenses – including my ludicrously fantastic Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM prime lens, a rather sexy 70-200mm f/2.8, etc etc etc. But this illustrates an important point: I’m spending the most money on the bits of kit that will actually impact my photos.
Truth be told, there isn’t that much difference between a 7-year-old Canon digital SLR camera like the 300D and a brand spanking new 550D. Sure, the latter has higher resolution and better toys, but most people simply don’t need the extra resolution. What you need is a shutter that works, a mirror that will move out of the way in time, and a sensor without too many dead pixels. From there on out, it’s all about the quality of your glass (i.e. your lenses), the quality of your light (i.e. sunlight / flash / natural light / diffusers / softboxes / light filters / etc) and… You.
With all the electronics, magnificent optics, and delicious equipment at your beck and call, the sad, scary, horrible truth is that the weakest link in everything I’ve just described is you. A competent photographer can take good photos with a single-use camera.
My advanced motorcycling club has a motto: “Upgrade your skills to match your machine”. In other words: Your motorcycle is probably better than you are, and you need to work smart (and hard) to not kill yourself. Granted, I’d be willing to accept that more people kill themselves with a set of handlebars between their hands than with a SLR, but the point stands: If you haven’t got the skills, there’s no point in blaming your tools.
What are the benefits of pricier cameras?
I quite like the fact that the Canon 450D looks unobtrusive: It makes street photography just that tiny bit easier.
As you go up the Canon and Nikon ranges, you get some very good benefits. If you’re working as a (semi-)professional photographer, the first thing you’ll notice is build quality. The budget cameras aren’t badly put together, but they’re made of plastic. Drop one, and there’s a pretty good chance it’s all just game over. The more pricey cameras are built of aluminium or magnesium, and can take significantly more abuse.
The higher-priced, higher-specced cameras also tend to have better screens, higher-resolution sensors, higher shooting and processing speed, and more gadgets to help you get the photos you desire. I’m not saying this is a bad thing: there’s a ‘right’ tool for every job. Very often, a more advanced tool can be used to do jobs that a cheaper tool could have completed, but not vice-versa.
I also note that ISO speed has come up in the comments a few times, and that had me wondering. I asked a good friend of mine who reviews camera equipment for a living. He explains that ‘budget’ SLR cameras are as good as their larger parents. It is possible to get better performance, of course, but that involves going full-frame, and then you’re suddenly well and truly out of budget-camera-territory, price-wise.
On the ISO front, you sometimes get an improvement with the latest high-end model but it very quickly filters down (see for example how fast the 550D got great high-ISO capabilities so soon after 7D).
Hey, aren’t you meant to be some hot-shot writer?
Again with the street photography! Don't I ever give up? Nope, of course not. (clicky for bigger)
Uhm… Yeah, I’d like to think of myself as one, anyway (and I’ve got the resume to back it up, if you’re particularly curious…), but the truth of the matter is that most of my writing is aimed at photographers who rank from ‘geez, which hole do I look into to see what I’m taking a photo of’ beginners, to ‘Hey, I do wonder what the comparative benefits of shooting in RAW is, compared to taking only JPEGs’ intermediate photographers. Truth is, more expensive cameras are objectively ‘better’.
… But the bottleneck is still the photographers. Take it from me: you’ll be much happier with a ‘cheap’ dSLR, a decent lens, and an oath to work hard on taking better photos, than by owning the hippest, coolest, and newest equipment on the market.
Concert photography is the only time where I'm feeling the 450D can occasionally let me down. But then again, I seem to have learned to work around its weaknesses, and still walk away with some pretty nifty photos... (clicky for bigger)
There’s nothing quite as embarrassing as a clueless newbie behind the wheel of a sportscar. My 450D is the all-rounder that lets me do everything I need to do with a camera.
And best of all? A 450D isn’t throw-away money, but if something horrible were to happen to my camera and I lost or destroyed it somehow, I could swear for 45 minutes straight, before walking into the nearest shop to buy myself another one. A Canon 1Ds mk III is small-family-hatchback territory; not the kind of money I can afford to lose.
The bottle-neck of good photography is often the photographer. This photo, I could have taken with a disposable camera (well, maybe. Certainly with a compact).
Finally, the 450D is more like the camera that my readers are likely to use. Truth of the matter is that people who own a much more expensive camera are more likely a) to no longer need my articles, b) to think they no longer need my articles, or c) to be so far ahead of the game that I haven’t got anything to offer them anymore.
Oh, and by the way… I sort of like the fact that the 450D is made of plastic. It’s much lighter to travel with, looks cheaper (and so is less likely to get stolen from me) and is less invasive when I’m working with my street photography projects…
Which doesn’t mean that I don’t occasionally think about upgrading. My 450D has served me well, but the recent launch of the Canon 550D has made me wonder if it isn’t time to bring me back up to date… So Canon, if you’re reading this… ;-)
My day job, if it can be called that, is being a writer. I've got one book out there so far and it's awesome, so go ahead and buy a copy! It's available from 
In front of you, five hyperactive men with guitars, drums, and microphones. Behind you, five thousand fans. In your hands, a camera... You're going to need more than just a little bit of good luck to pull this one off. That's where this book comes in.
Take a Canon EOS 450D. Attach a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. Hit the streets of London. See what happens.
Insights, suggestions and comments
There is really one reason I need more wxpensive camera. Less noise with higher ISO speeds. Many times natural light works for the best in night and low-light phorography which I do a LOT. Flashlights are useful but not allways the solution.
But if I would shoot mainly in good light or in the studio, then I would settle for much less expensive camera that 5D mark II. I don’t need the resolution or anything. Just less noise with more ISO.
Hah, ik wist niet dat je Nederlands praatte. Zeer goed artikel, ik wou dat iedereen die binnenkort een eerste camera gaat kopen eerst een paar van dit soort artikels las – zou ze een hoop geld besparen.
–
Hah, I didn’t know you understand Dutch. I really like this article, if only all the people buying their first camera read these sort of articles, it’d save them a lot of money.
The majority of my favourite shots I took on cameras picked up for less than £100 on ebay. I think it helps to take it back to basics and concentrate on the shot, not the elaborate picture box!
well said. I’m a pro event photographer still using a Canon 10D for all my work.
Mie, some of the entry level dSLRs do have very good high ISO quality, if not top of the line. It’s not really a function of price, it’s the sensor and these are getting better all the time. Haje nailed it on the head, the current crop of dSLRs are all excellent pieces of gear, the limitations are seldom the camera.
Great point. I often tell people who ask – spend more on the lens than on the box. A fast lens with aid inmost photo situations.
I’ve been into photography for about 5 years. It is refreshing to see the attitude of learning to use what you have and push your skills rather than buy your way to better photos. Super expensive bodies and MFDB setups can make it easier to get the photos you want but nothing is more rewarding than making photos with what you have.
Cheers
RE: “…people who own a much more expensive camera are more likely a) to no longer need my articles, b) to think they no longer need my articles, or c) to be so far ahead of the game that I haven’t got anything to offer them anymore.”
I own a prosumer DSLRs. I find that, although many things that I read are not new to me, I had forgotten about more than a few of them of them and reading them jogs my memory . I also read quite a number of things that I read are something that are new.
Your entry which I excerpted above, reminds me of a remark I heard years ago when taking a birding course, “A journeyman birder might think he/she knows everything. An expert birder knows there is too much to know everything.”
Keep up the good work.
It’s nice to hear someone else talking about this.
I LOVE this article! I am a part-time pro photographer and I just recently ‘upgraded’ to a used 30D from the original Rebel! I shot with studio lights for many years so I didn’t have to worry about noise. I then moved to outdoor location and again, no worries. But I now shoot indoors with natural light as well and the old Rebel just wasn’t cutting it at ISO above 200! I’m perfectly happy with my 30D, as are all my clients! I do own a few primes and a wide angle and know that it IS the glass (and the photographer) that ‘make’ the image – not the camera!
As a fellow blogger and what I would optimistically term an ‘intermediate’ photographer, this article is spot-on, and pretty much sums up the whole upgrading issue.
Let’s face it, the shots that we (and people generally) find really inspiring probably don’t rely on the latest whistles and bells body…but the profits of the companies making those bodies DO. I run a 40d because it fits in my spade-hands better than the cameras in the range below, at the time I think that in some ways the cheaper camera was better specced.
I’d like a 7d, sure, but I doubt I have the skill to make better pictures with it.
Fab stuff, thanks for posting this – it’s exactly what I used to say to people who ask for advice on which camera to buy. Funnily enough I’m about to get myself a DSLR and was pondering the (as you call it) “family hatchback” end of the market, yet I completely forgot my own advice!
Entry(ish) level and decent glass for me, every time. :o)
glad I hit on this item, still trying to get to grips with the Canon G 10 – but thinking of going to the SLR, nice to know I don’t have to break the bank.
Will be looking fordward to the “book” hope you’ll keep the wrinkly brigade in mind of which I am one!
Mary
Great article – just what i’ve thought for years. Now just need to get my skills up to scratch! Thanks for the honesty.
What a great article! I agree 100%.
The picture emanates from the photographer’s eye/brain – not from the camera.
Learning to see and to compose are some of the most important things in photography IMHO.
And I agree, better buy a “lower-tech” body and spend the money for pretty good (prime) lenses.
However, I must admit that I have a weak spot for new gadgets – as long as rationality prevails everything is fine though. ;-)
Thank you for validating what I’ve always believed to be true.
I don’t agree with the article at all. My advice is buy the best camera you can afford. The difference between a 5D2 and a 500D is vast. I know I own both. There are shots I have taken this week with my 5D2 and 35 f1.4 which I couldn’t have taken with the 500D.
If you are serious about photography, spend some serious money.
Thanks, someone had to say this and you did it in a really great way. Neither an expensive camera nor megapixels (something always used to sell really crappy cameras) make a good photo. Experience is a great substitute for money ;)
I agree that even today’s cheap DSLR’s take phenomenal pictures. But, they need to be mated to awesome optics. Where an expensive DSLR makes the difference is sensor size and ISO performance. With a full frame sensor, wider angles can be used and still cropped with little reduction in image quality. With ISO performance of expensive bodies like the Canon 5DII or Nikon D3, images can be taken several stops darker than their cheaper counterparts.
After starting with a Nikon D50 and learning the ways of a digital SLR i moved to a D80 for a bit more speed and a few more pixels. Low light performance is what really got my attention though.
starting with an high end model doen’st indeed teach you how to take good schots. Its knowing your subject.
hail to this GREAT blogpost!
A thousand times yes.
If I could go back in time, and well, the Nikon D3000 existed in 2008, that’s what I would’ve gotten.
i am so happy to find this blog and i absolutely love this article! thank u!!^^ i was researching as i am trying to buy my very first canon dslr and i have sort of decided on canon 500d. but my friend has canon 50d (she takes photos for hobby) and she says it is more pro than 500d. do u think i’ve made the right decision? also, regarding lenses, i have heard that i should never get the kit lense. then, which lense would u recommend? i am only a beginner but definitely considering to develop my photography skills..
If you really want to learn to pay attention to f stop, shutter speed, DOF, compsition, shoot like every 36 frames cost you $5 and it’ll take 3 days to see what you have. Anyone remember “film”? I paid $700 for a Nikon F100 years ago. Add a motor drive with 8 batteries and know a good chiropractor because you’re going to walk like Quasimoto in a week. It was rugged enough to take a bullet for you but after a week of shooting you’d probably rather take the bullet yourself. I think I got $250 for camera and motor drive a few years ago. There’s a saying…”It’s a poor craftsman that blames his tools”.
Yep! Strongly agree with all of this – well said. Forget the high end, buy a 450D (12mp = good A3 print) and spend the rest on going somewhere brilliant that will get you so photographically excited you can’t stop taking pictures.
Happy snapping, y’all,
Steve
thank you for your comments. now im considering to buy 450d. but what about lenses?
I have been a professional photographer for about five years… I have a fairly good set up now (Canon Ti) and I use filters a fair amount. My favorite third-party filter company is Topaz Labs. I have used Photoshop for a million years but really, I’m not super good with it. I use a few basic filters and that’s about it… the Topaz filters are perfect for folks like me who want professional results with a few clicks.
Yes, photography is mostly skill with your eyes not the camera.
But we’ll see whose pictures look better under low light.
I recently brought a Canon 1000D as a replacement for my 6 year old panasonic DMC-FZ20 superzoom which i payed £700 for. I was wondering if it was worth spending just £330 to replace the older panasonic. The panasonic only had an electronic viewfinder which went completely black at night leaving you with no means to focus which was a big reason i upgraded. For the money i am very impressed. the bundled lens is a load of crap but other than that there is nothing to fault on the camera. it does everything you could wish for.
as far as nikons go, there is a sizable difference between the d40 & d60 range (dx CCDs), the d90 & other dx CMOS sensors, and the higher end fx sensors.
This is certainly inspiration for those aspiring photographers that feel they are not “ready” yet to make money off of their photos. When you want to sell your photos online, it can be intimidating to know that other professionals have spent those thousands of $ on state of the art equipment – and they forget that it is THEY, THEMSELVES that is the all important factor to creating a beautiful photo.
Good post, really sums up the issue with “good” photography. Skills, not technology, makes all the difference. Hitech dSLRs can be useful, but in most cases, nah, really not necessary.
Thumbs up.
Paul
I get a lot of my best photos with my 10-year-old Nikon Coolpix. It is slow to shoot, and you cannot count on the shutter button actually noticing you pressing it; it has trouble with photos where the light level varies greatly within the frame; and the review screen is so small as to almost be useless. But, within its limits, it takes great photos, especially in the barrios and ruined industrial landscapes where I like to shoot.
Share your wisdom